Mihalis00's page

Your player is right. Cost is based on total bonus, including special properties.

Ok, I'm glad that is clear. I have some unintended cheating to fix.

Thanks.

Hi there,

Even after playing for a while, I am still boggled by Magic Weapons and Armor. So, I ask you how it works with a scenario:

A +1 dagger costs 2000 + Masterwork costs etc, right?

So, does a +1 dagger with Flaming (cost= +1 Bonus) cost 4000 + Masterwork costs etc?

I originally thought that's how it works but another player in my group has informed me otherwise. He thinks that the "+1 Bonus" cost for flaming means it is the cost of a +2 weapon. So, does that mean a +1 dagger with flaming would cost 8000 + Masterwork costs etc?

Sorry if this is confusing, but I'm really confused by the whole lot of it.

Thanks.

Thank you Nearyn, Sealbreaker, Tholoymes, Daniel Thrace and Gargs for your quick and detailed responses. I can easily say that your opinions have helped me and rest assured, your advice will be taken graciously.

Issue resolved.

Thank you.

Well the problem with alignment questions is that you can ask 6 different people the same alignment question and you might get 8 different answers.

That being said, I'll start with the Ranger because that is the easier one (in my opinion). The Ranger neither helped kill the boy, nor, intervened to protect the boy. Both of those (imho) represent a True Neutral response. If he is later asked about it and lies, then it becomes a little more along the lines of "helping" the murderer, but that's still not a huge deal to me.

As for the CN sorcerer, I'll confess that CN is my least favorite alignment as a GM. In my experience, players tend to use CN to mean that they can do whatever they want, whenever they want without all the "baggage" of having an evil alignment. I personally don't think that's quite what CN means.

As for killing an innocent boy just because he may or may not understand who or what the sorcerer is, without more information, I would have to say that its an evil act. From your description, there wasn't any indication that the boy knew the sorcerer was a magic user, nor did it indicate the boy heard what happened in the tavern and thus determined other PCs were magic users.

However, even if we were to assume that the boy did figure everything out, there are other means available to the sorcerer than just murdering the boy. He could bribe him. He could "kidnap" him and make him the party's hired hand, etc.

Now, all that being said, while I think its an evil act, I personally do not believe that a single act (typically speaking) should be enough to shift an alignment (assuming you are not talking about said single act being burning an entire village and its inhabitants to the ground, etc.) Rather, I would let the player know that his character absolutely committed an evil act and that he is in danger of having an alignment shift. But the single act in and of itself, would not cause me to shift the alignment. To use a movie analogy, take a look at the Star Wars prequels....

More info: The sorcerer gathered that since the stable boy saw them (the party) come to the tavern together; the child would reveal that to the inquisitors, and they would make the assumption that they were all magic users, rather than just the three who entered the tavern originally.

Thanks for the answer though, very insightful. A Star Wars analogy always works.

I admit to being a bit biased since we avoid using alignments and their restrictions, but you could simply not tell them anything about alignment shift and play out the consequences.

That is unless there are specific spells or effects you are using that target or use alignment.

Act mysterious and don't actually specify anything about it, but have consequences that may even seem unfair ie. "Why is everyone hunting us, we are the good guys!"

Plus a world with easily accessible magic and witch hunts is a morally grey. Both sides have fair points as to why the other side is evil and they are good.

So yeah, don't make your players stick to an alignment and impose penalties for violating it, just roll with it and show them that actions have consequences.

Hmm, good idea. Perhaps, they will have even more run ins with the inquisitors since they are labelled child-killers as well as magic users, thus the hunt for them will be more intense.

Thanks. While I personally dislike labeling them according to alignment; the rest of the party enjoys it these days. They have large discussions about their actions and what alignment it would represent. It's just very grey, so it sometimes spawns arguments within the group, which isn't cool.

A question for you. When you say "Would you shift his alignment? How harshly would you shift..." what exactly do you mean by shift?

I'll be able to respond once I know that.

-Nearyn

Sorry, our group has come to the agreement that as they act out of alignment or out of character, I would note what they did and change their alignment accordingly. I'm not sure if that's a thing that people do usually.

We wanted alignment tracked to represent our characters growth and identity changing.

I should rephrase the question cause I'm not sure if that's what normal groups do.

Was it an evil act? Or would you consider it a Neutral act?

Thanks.

Hi all,

My group and I are fairly new to Dungeons and Dragons, having played about 15 sessions in total. We started a new campaign after the party was killed in the previous campaign. Now, in the previous campaign I didn't bother tracking the players alignment; however, since I'm becoming more experienced as a DM and my players are becoming more experienced as players, we decided to track alignment this time round.

Now, after having read about the alignments and what they are supposed to represent, I've noticed a lot of grey and not so much black and white. In our last session, this happened:

>World is anti-magic, inquisitors roam the land burning magic users at the stake.
> 3/5 Players walk in to a tavern, inquisitors are sitting in the corner.
> 2/5 Players stay outside talking to the stable boy in front of the tavern.
> One of the Players inside the tavern inadvertently reveals that they are magic users to the inquisitors.
> Players inside manage to escape out the back, invisible or otherwise. The inquisitors follow them.
> One of the Players (sorcerer - Chaotic Neutral) talking to the stable boy was listening in and was able to figure out what was going on.
> The Player (sorcerer - Chaotic Neutral) panics and rips the child to pieces with Diamond Spray spell, fearing that the boy would reveal his identity to the inquisitors at a later point.
> Him and the other player who witnessed the act (ranger - True Neutral) did not tell the party what they did.

Personally, I think the act was evil. He murdered in order to protect himself. However, he thinks he acted the way a Chaotic Neutral character would act. He argued that being Chaotic Neutral meant that he should be able to do anything which best interests HIMSELF. In this case, a lesser chance of being hunted down by the inquisitors, therefore a less likely chance of being killed.

I know a lot of you will say it's my choice as a DM and I agree. But I endeavor to be a fair DM who listens to the opinions of his players. My question is:

If you were DM, would you shift his alignment? How harshly would you shift his alignment if you did? and;

Would you shift the alignment of the other player who witnessed the act and did nothing to stop it?

If you've gotten this far, thanks for reading. Any advice would be great.

Thanks.